T1B

Posted: **Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:52 pm**

I just saw the line on the game. What am I missing?

MSU is unbeaten and Iowa's defense has really fallen apart for some reason.

6.5 point spread seems a bit high for this game. Not saying Iowa can't win by that much but considering how little respect Vegas always gives Iowa (hence our 17-6 record ATS in the last 23 I believe), it really doesn't make a lot of sense.

What am I missing here? I think Iowa is going to win, but I was surprised to see the spread so high. Seems like the smart money should be on MSU.

Posted: **Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:13 pm**

Funny you mention this...I analyzed this today as I am taking MSU and the points...if you look at Sagarin (I know there are a ton more folks out there)...but if you look at the predictors for both teams (which Sagarin says is the most accurate predictor for one game) and now his model is unbiased...so here it is

Iowa Predictor 84.95
MSU Predictor 81.87

difference is 3.08...you would give Iowa 2.95 for home field so that comes out to Iowa should be about a 6 point favorite...I plan on taking that hook for sure...

if you look at Oregon v USC...Oregon predictor is 93.37 and USC's is 85.53 so that is 7.84 and subract 2.95 for USC being at home you get a hypothetical line of 4.89 so you are getting line value with USC...but I still think Oregon butt fucks them in the mouth...

Look at AZ v UCLA...AZ Predictor 87.71 UCLA Predictor 70.36 which would be 17.35 subract the 2.95 and you get 14.40 (hypothetical line)...but AZ is only giving 9 or 9.5 so I am pounding AZ...

food for thought

Posted: **Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:38 pm**

I'm no sports betting expert, but if Sagarin + home field comes out to 6 in a 6.5 point spread, isn't the smart money really to just stay away from the game completely?

Posted: **Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:42 pm**

Also, another question......

You list home field for Iowa advantage at 2.95 and same with USC. USC has absolutely no home field advantage, and Kinnick is one of the most hostile environments. USC is a laid back, unintimidating atmoshpere. If USC is 2.95, shouldn't Kinnick be worth about 6-7 points? Especially when you factor in that USC is unranked and so there's probably no more than 4 people in the city of LA that actually even know USC has a home game.

Posted: **Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:15 pm**

Even though this will be a tough game to win, I know MSU is relishing getting back in the trenches vs a pro style team. Even though Iowa is better than a team like, say, Northwestern, schematically this is a more favorable matchup for MSU. Ditto Iowa, I'm sure. 6.5 is definitely high given the fact these teams always play each other close. Hell, last year Iowa was the far superior team and still needed a final minute drive and TD to win the game. I wouldn't be shocked to see Iowa win by a TD+, but I think somewhere between a 1-4 point win for the Hawkeyes is much more likely.

Posted: **Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:18 pm**

i'm guessing Vegas is betting against Iowa losing 2 in a row at home. MSU looked pretty beatable against NW last week on the road, as well.

Posted: **Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:21 pm**

King Crimson wrote:i'm guessing Vegas is betting against Iowa losing 2 in a row at home. MSU looked pretty beatable against NW last week on the road, as well.

If you're going to look at an isolated game to project this one, UW would probably be the better choice, as they're a mirror image of Iowa.

Posted: **Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:27 pm**

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Even though this will be a tough game to win, I know MSU is relishing getting back in the trenches vs a pro style team. Even though Iowa is better than a team like, say, Northwestern, schematically this is a more favorable matchup for MSU. Ditto Iowa, I'm sure. 6.5 is definitely high given the fact these two teams always play each other close. I wouldn't be shocked to see Iowa win by a TD+, but I think somewhere between a 1-4 point win for the Hawkeyes is much more likely.

It's going to be interesting. I don't really know exactly what to expect. I like the fact that Ferentz' teams always seem to bounce back from a tough loss with a great performance. Even last year when we lost to Northwestern and ended our national title hopes, we came right back without Hunter, Stanzi, and Wegher and took Ohio State to overtime- though it was another game of Ferentz being a sackless pussy and playing for OT even though we had PLENTY of time to get into FG range and win it in regulation. Play for a tie on the road I guess.....

This game should be a really good matchup. I want to see Iowa's defense get back to playing like they're capable. I would like to know what the fuck happened to "6 seconds of hell". Doesn't sound like Hunter or Tarpinian will play and this scares me. James Morris has potential and is going to be a good linebacker in about a year, but he's just not there yet. And Troy Johnson just flat out SUCKS. No athleticism and no clue what the hell is going on. MSU can run slants over the middle all day and there's nothing Iowa can do about it with Johnson in the middle.

I think running the football will be tough against MSU tomorrow, but I think MSU will have some problems covering our downfield passing game. It's too bad Brandon Wegher and Jewel Hampton can't play tomorrow because I think they would be a better matchup against MSU's run defense than Adam Robinson. MSU has good speed in the front 7, and those type of teams give A-Rob problems. We have a retard for an offensive coordinator and I'm sure he doesn't know this, so if any of you would like to pass that idiot on an MSU scouting report, that would be great. Seriously, I don't think he watches game film nor does he seem to actually pay attention to what's going on in the game Iowa is playing. So based on what I just said about the matchups, looks for A-Rob to get 30 carries and Stanzi to throw it downfield less than twice all game. Don't put it past Ken O'Keefe to pull that crap. The idiot has done it many times before and cost us many a game.

I think this ends up being a lot like the Iowa-Wisconsin game. Just going to come down to who makes the fewest mistakes. If Iowa limits the stupid uncharacteristic mistakes they made against Arizona and Wisconsin- just like those 2 games- they should win.

Posted: **Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:29 pm**

King Crimson wrote:i'm guessing Vegas is betting against Iowa losing 2 in a row at home. MSU looked pretty beatable against NW last week on the road, as well.

But Northwestern is a quality team and that was a road trap game. I said last week I would not be surprised to see MSU lose because of that. I give them a lot of credit for pulling that out in the end. It shows a lot of mental toughness. Trap games can be a bitch sometimes.

Posted: **Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:31 pm**

pretty much any roadie in the Big Ten is gonna be tough. Good teams that play up every week.

Posted: **Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:37 pm**

King Crimson wrote:pretty much any roadie in the Big Ten is gonna be tough. Good teams that play up every week.

Well, Northwestern is far from a tough road trip. It's more the fact that you have to go anywhere on the road to face a decent football team the week before you're playing in the biggest game of possibly 20 years.

By the way, fuck Northwestern. Fuck everything about that school. Fitzgerald is a douchebag. Their 18 fans are all clowns. If Iowa doesn't piss pound them this year, I am bombing that fucking stadium on my way out.

Posted: **Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:37 pm**

King Crimson wrote:pretty much any roadie in the Big Ten is gonna be tough. Good teams that play up every week.

Of course Northwestern is no national powerhouse, but within the context of conference play, yeah, roadies can be tough. That holds true for the Big 12, SEC, whateva.

Posted: **Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:52 pm**

TheJON wrote:
King Crimson wrote:pretty much any roadie in the Big Ten is gonna be tough. Good teams that play up every week.
Well, Northwestern is far from a tough road trip. It's more the fact that you have to go anywhere on the road to face a decent football team the week before you're playing in the biggest game of possibly 20 years.

By the way, fuck Northwestern. Fuck everything about that school. Fitzgerald is a douchebag. Their 18 fans are all clowns. If Iowa doesn't piss pound them this year, I am bombing that fucking stadium on my way out.

i almost went to NWestern....but visited in the summer with my mom. we drove up from Norman. Grinnell, Oberlin, NW. i thought NW was really creepy. that's why i chose Vanderbilt....there were actually girls there.

Posted: **Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:00 pm**

That's no joke. I haven't been on their campus since the 2001 Iowa-Northwestern game, but it was the lamest atmosphere and my goodness the girls were butt fucking ugly. Did not see 1 entire good looking N'Western girl. Not 1!

Duke was very similar but I thought it was a nicer campus. There's no hotties on the Dook campus either.

Posted: **Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:23 pm**

"That's alright,
That's okay,
You'll all be working for us someday"

Sin,

Northwestern student section

Posted: **Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:30 pm**

TheJON wrote:That's no joke. I haven't been on their campus since the 2001 Iowa-Northwestern game, but it was the lamest atmosphere and my goodness the girls were butt fucking ugly. Did not see 1 entire good looking N'Western girl. Not 1!

Duke was very similar but I thought it was a nicer campus. There's no hotties on the Dook campus either.

You done lost your mind about Duke! I just sent my youngest sister who had been living with me for the last 18 months off to school there this fall. They have some gorgeous and well educated woman on that campus. I went to wrestling tournaments on the campus when I was younger and even attended a handful of games at Cameron. You just speak out your ass the vast majority of the time.

Posted: **Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:51 pm**

No, Dook girls are BUTT FUCKING UGLY.

Even those girls you posted are just kinda meh. Are you blind?? Gay???

The funny thing is those girls you posted would quite literally be the hottest girls on campus.

Hell, that fugly chick that wrote a thesis about banging Dook athletes just proves my point. I mean, that skank was able to bang ANY guy on campus and she was a complete Butterface.

Dook girls are ugly as shit, just like Northwestern. Go get some glasses or something.

Posted: **Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:08 pm**

TheJON wrote:No, Dook girls are BUTT FUCKING UGLY.

Even those girls you posted are just kinda meh. Are you blind?? Gay???

The funny thing is those girls you posted would quite literally be the hottest girls on campus.

Hell, that fugly chick that wrote a thesis about banging Dook athletes just proves my point. I mean, that skank was able to bang ANY guy on campus and she was a complete Butterface.

Dook girls are ugly as shit, just like Northwestern. Go get some glasses or something.

I have spent far more time on the Duke campus than you would probably ever dream of. Duke women rank up there with SEC women. You're that loser who wants to downgrade every campus because you never got laid in high school or college aren't you?

Posted: **Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:14 am**

SunCoastSooner wrote:
TheJON wrote:No, Dook girls are BUTT FUCKING UGLY.

Even those girls you posted are just kinda meh. Are you blind?? Gay???

The funny thing is those girls you posted would quite literally be the hottest girls on campus.

Hell, that fugly chick that wrote a thesis about banging Dook athletes just proves my point. I mean, that skank was able to bang ANY guy on campus and she was a complete Butterface.

Dook girls are ugly as shit, just like Northwestern. Go get some glasses or something.

I have spent far more time on the Duke campus than you would probably ever dream of. Duke women rank up there with SEC women. You're that loser who wants to downgrade every campus because you never got laid in high school or college aren't you?

Great comeback. The 'ol "you never got laid card". My dick got enough of a workout back in the day, numbnuts.

No, you haven't spent more time on the Dook campus than I could ever dream of because I have no intentions of ever going onto their campus again. Not because the women are butt fucking ugly, but because I couldn't give 2 shits about Dook or anything related to Dook. If you think that either the chicks in those photos you posted OR that you've seen on the Dook campus are "hot", I think we can safely say it was YOU that lacked sexual relations with the opposite sex. If that's "hot", you've got to be desperate as shit.

I don't downgrade EVERY campus. In fact, I can think of 2 campuses within 10 miles of Dook that have a SHIT TON of hotties. I walked around the Dook campus when I was there, I've seen photos of Dook girls, I have an old HS buddy whom is getting a masters degree from Dook and tells me all about the ugly ass girls and how he gets plenty of poontang on the campus and he is the goofiest looking guy you could ever meet (no offense to him, he's 8,000 times smarter than any of us and will probably be a CEO of a major corporation someday......I'm just sayin', he's an ugly dude).

That fucker gets pussy on the Dook campus. He got NO pussy when he went to Iowa. And when I say "no pussy", I mean the only time any little bit of jizz came out of his cock was when he was masterbating. That's not me assuming either. He even said so. Well, unless you count the ONE time his freshman year where (allegedly) some chick gave him a handjob (though no one ever confirmed that).

You wanna know who can get ANY guy on campus at Dook?

This chick...

She's a 10 by Dook standards. Anywhere else she's MAYBE a 3. I wouldn't fuck her with YOUR cock. That chick gets ALL of the freakin' athletes at Dook for crying out loud.

Dook girls at age 19 look like fucking soccer moms, but not the hot kinda soccer mom. The "never wear any makeup or do anything attractive with my hair" kinda soccer mom. They look like a daughter of a meth addict that fucked a gothic dude.

You are either.........confused that you were actually on the UNC campus (or NC State), blind, gay, or you're so desperate that you find ANY female attractive.

What the fuck are you smoking, dude? Get this man a pair of glasses. Good lord.

Posted: **Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:24 am**

TheJON, on his buddy, wrote:the only time any little bit of jizz came out of his cock was when he was masterbating.

Posted: **Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:24 am**

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
TheJON, on his buddy, wrote:the only time any little bit of jizz came out of his cock was when he was masterbating.

Jon was there. he knows. scary.

Posted: **Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:27 am**

TheJON is one of my favorite posters.

Posted: **Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:33 am**

i spent a semester in grad school at Duke. chicks weren't that bad. some kind of southern clause about making marrying....Vandy was the same. lotta hot, rich chicks at Vandy. from fancy Atlanta suburbs. all the dudes were from New England prep schools, girls from Atlanta.

Posted: **Sat Oct 30, 2010 4:46 am**

King Crimson wrote:i spent a semester in grad school at Duke. chicks weren't that bad. some kind of southern clause about making marrying....Vandy was the same. lotta hot, rich chicks at Vandy. from fancy Atlanta suburbs. all the dudes were from New England prep schools, girls from Atlanta.

I dated a hottie from Atlanta back when I lived in Montana. Her Atlanta friends were smokin hot. Even better- they were rich. They all went to SEC schools- UGA, Ole Miss, Vandy, Tennessee, and LSU. They have very nice looking photos on Facebook!

I'm not saying there are NO hotties at Duke. Every campus has some hotties (except maybe Northwestern). But come on......it is some slim pickins. Nothing compared to UNC or NC State just down the road.

But nothing beats the hotties at the SEC schools. I don't even think USC does. I loves me a southern woman!

Posted: **Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:21 am**

You're absolutely correct noJj, never had a nice piece of ass in college... or anywhere else for that matter. Anyone who I have chosen to socialize from here outside of this place can vouch for that.

Just ask skull or Carson... nothing but dogs in my life... it's rough.

T1B

Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Re: Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Re: Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Re: Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Re: Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Re: Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Re: Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Re: Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Re: Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Re: Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Re: Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Re: Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Re: Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Re: Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Re: Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Re: Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Re: Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Re: Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Re: Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Re: Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Re: Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Re: Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Re: Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Re: Mgo...... iowa -6.5

Re: Mgo...... iowa -6.5